• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Let's push back

old dog

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2009
Messages
396
Location
, ,
imported post

[align=left][/align]Since stores and businesses, though open to and soliciting the public, are granted broad private-property rights to discriminate against armed citizens (a stance that would not be tolerated against any other group) why shouldn't they be required to provide safe, convenient storage for citizens' guns while on the premises?

Why should we have to bear the burden of their bias? Let them be the ones inconvenienced. Faced with this, they might adopt a more reasonable position.

It's good to stir the pot now and then.
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

Let's see....

You are OK with the fact that you can control YOUR property and have the right to prohibit people to be there. But a business should not be afforded those same rights?

I own a business and you want me to have less rights than you?? That sounds fair!!

What is the difference between you and me exactly?

Let's see...

I put myself out there and took a chance starting my own business.

I pay more taxes than you and put in all those hours just to provide YOU with the ability to conveniently buy my wares? Without ME... you would not have a place to buy what I offer.

Well thank you very much!!

How about we are equal and have the same rights. I can decide to ban you and you can decide to shop some place else.
 

Deanimator

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2007
Messages
2,083
Location
Rocky River, OH, U.S.A.
imported post

LEO 229 wrote:
Let's see....

You are OK with the fact that you can control YOUR property and have the right to prohibit people to be there. But a business should not be afforded those same rights?

I own a business and you want me to have less rights than you?? That sounds fair!!

What is the difference between you and me exactly?

Let's see...

I put myself out there and took a chance starting my own business.

I pay more taxes than you and put in all those hours just to provide YOU with the ability to conveniently buy my wares? Without ME... you would not have a place to buy what I offer.

Well thank you very much!!

How about we are equal and have the same rights. I can decide to ban you and you can decide to shop some place else.
If you deny me the right to defend myself then you assume that responsibility yourself. Sounds fair to me.
 

Dom

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
150
Location
Aurora, Colorado, USA
imported post

If you deny me the right to defend myself then you assume that responsibility yourself. Sounds fair to me.
No, the property owner has no responsibility to defend you. You voluntarily surrendered your weapon. If you don't like it, don't step foot on the property...no one is forcing you. Private property owners have rights too.

I agree with your statement on public property.
 

mobeewan

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2007
Messages
652
Location
Hampton, Va, ,
imported post

Deanimator wrote:
LEO 229 wrote:
Let's see....

You are OK with the fact that you can control YOUR property and have the right to prohibit people to be there. But a business should not be afforded those same rights?

I own a business and you want me to have less rights than you?? That sounds fair!!

What is the difference between you and me exactly?

Let's see...

I put myself out there and took a chance starting my own business.

I pay more taxes than you and put in all those hours just to provide YOU with the ability to conveniently buy my wares? Without ME... you would not have a place to buy what I offer.

Well thank you very much!!

How about we are equal and have the same rights. I can decide to ban you and you can decide to shop some place else.
If you deny me the right to defend myself then you assume that responsibility yourself. Sounds fair to me.

When you invite me onto your private property to solicit my business anddeny me the right to defend myself then you assume that responsibility yourself.
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

Deanimator wrote:
If you deny me the right to defend myself then you assume that responsibility yourself. Sounds fair to me.
You are delusional.

I am not forcing you to come to my store. You come to buy wares of your own free will. You are not forced, compelled, or required to do it.

If my store is so dangerous that you need to be armed then maybe you need to call in your order and I can have it ready at the curb. I take credit cards.

Get over the entire argument on how others are somehow responsible for you.

I really want to know what you wear at the swimming pool. People die at pools you know. I bet you wear those little arm floaty wings. It is a dangerous world out there? Do you put your gun in a plastic bag and OC it at the pool so you can be armed there too? :p


Factoid:
In 2004, there were 3,308 unintentional drownings in the United States, an average of nine people per day.(CDC 2006)
 

old dog

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2009
Messages
396
Location
, ,
imported post

LEO 229 et al.:

My home is not open to the public and their attendance is not solicited. I offer no enticement and only invitees are welcome.

Is it then your position that ethnicity or gender can also be used to bar the public at the businessman's whim?

Years ago a friend of mine was forced to close our neighborhood bar because his longstanding policy of not allowing women landed him in court. His argument that women in bars inevitably cause trouble was rejected out of hand. So much for his private-property rights.
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

mobeewan wrote:
When you invite me onto your private property to solicit my business anddeny me the right to defend myself then you assume that responsibility yourself.
Check that third word you used.... "INVITE" as this is the key word.

Invite
[*](v. i.) To give invitation. [*](v. t.) To allure; to draw to; to tempt to come; to induce by pleasure or hope; to attract. [*](v. t.) To ask; to request; to bid; to summon; to ask to do some act, or go to some place; esp., to ask to an entertainment or visit; to request the company of; as, to invite to dinner, or a wedding, or an excursion. [*](v. t.) To give occasion for; as, to invite criticism.
An invitation can be refused. You are not required to attend. You are not COMPELLED to go.

Now if you are forced to go and cannot go armed... the other party should afford you some type of protection.

But we are talking about you voluntarily walking in to buy a pair of arm floats for the pool and a nose plug. Find another store that allows you to carry if you do not the rules.

For the record.... I allow weapons in my store but I do not sell swim gear.
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

old dog wrote:
LEO 229 et al.:

My home is not open to the public and their attendance is not solicited. I offer no enticement and only invitees are welcome.

Is it then your position that ethnicity or gender can also be used to bar the public at the businessman's whim?

Years ago a friend of mine was forced to close our neighborhood bar because his longstanding policy of not allowing women landed him in court. His argument that women in bars inevitably cause trouble was rejected out of hand. So much for his private-property rights.
Here we go!!! I knew we would make this jump. It happens almost as fast as bringing up Nazis. A last resort to prove a case. :lol:

Race, ethnicity, and gender are who you are and you CANNOT change that. This should not and simply cannot be held against you. This is wrong.

Now.... what you decide to DO is another matter.

How about I bring in my 2 pit bulls into your ice cream shop and while I am there nobody comes in while I eat my fully loaded banana split??

Should you be allowed to forbid me entry because of that? I use 2 pit bulls for protection because I am a convicted felon and cannot own a gun.

And your friend was wrong. Just because a woman in a bar might cause a man's hormones to kick in does not make it her fault.

I am sorry.. what kind of bar was it anyway? The Blue Oyster? :p
 

longwatch

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
May 14, 2006
Messages
4,327
Location
Virginia, USA
imported post

Well so far we just have opinions, good ons but what does the law or case law say? In Virginia, business owners are not liable for the safety of their patrons except in special circumstances. See Taboda v. Daly Seven
http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opnscvwp/1051094t.pdf

Also, there are better ways to deal with businesses that are anti. A good example is here. http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum54/24662.html
Simply lets avoid intentional confrontations.


[flash=425,344]http://www.youtube.com/v/tTJMerul33E&hl=en&fs=1[/flash]
 

old dog

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2009
Messages
396
Location
, ,
imported post

It was a bar that offered surcease from the lawnmower and the job jar, a place to drop into on the way to or from the hardware store, the grocery or the gas station; a calm, quiet place to discuss politics or sports -- in short a refuge for adults who could actually read and write English. The cops avoided it like the plague.

I don't understand the "Blue Oyster" reference but considering the source I suppose it was intended as a clever slur.
 

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
imported post

old dog wrote:
I don't understand the "Blue Oyster" reference but considering the source I suppose it was intended as a clever slur.
Not even a slur, but all he knows of the keywords.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_Academy_(franchise)#Setting

This after yapping about his "fully loaded banana-split' thinking no one would recognize it as a sly reference to his favorite, a "Montana Banana" featured at Magnolia Thunderpussy's in the Haight.

My calculus instructor, Lt. Sotzig, USN, rewarded his classes with a trip to Miss Mallon's ice cream parlor.
 

R a Z o R

Banned
Joined
Feb 5, 2009
Messages
861
Location
Rockingham, North Carolina, USA
imported post

old dog wrote:
LEO 229 et al.:

My home is not open to the public and their attendance is not solicited. I offer no enticement and only invitees are welcome.

Is it then your position that ethnicity or gender can also be used to bar the public at the businessman's whim?

Years ago a friend of mine was forced to close our neighborhood bar because his longstanding policy of not allowing women landed him in court. His argument that women in bars inevitably cause trouble was rejected out of hand. So much for his private-property rights.

Old dog I am with you . At what point must I give up my inalienable rights ? Where does it say that again ? Am I not the welcomed puplic ? Perhaps the attorneys have been brain washed to believe a lie . Will I become an unlawful citizen upon crossing a threshold ?
 

thx997303

Regular Member
Joined
May 7, 2008
Messages
2,712
Location
Lehi, Utah, USA
imported post

How about, we remove legal force from the signs prohibiting firearms, while allowing the property/business owner to remove people from their store because they violate it. Then if they dont comply, stick a trespassing charge on the individual.

Then, lets desensitize the public to carry of a defensive weapon, getting rid of the fear that is supposedly out there, so that businesses dont have a reason to ban firearms.

Sounds like everybody wins.
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

old dog wrote:
It was a bar that offered surcease from the lawnmower and the job jar, a place to drop into on the way to or from the hardware store, the grocery or the gas station; a calm, quiet place to discuss politics or sports -- in short a refuge for adults who could actually read and write English. The cops avoided it like the plague.

I don't understand the "Blue Oyster" reference but considering the source I suppose it was intended as a clever slur.
OK, I am going to guess you have NEVER watched the movie Police Academy.... :lol:

My, how we rush to judgment and paint people as using slurs.

It is apparent that Longwatch picked up on it and I am so happy he posted the video. I love that scene... Hilarious prank they played on those two.

The reference is easily attached in-so-far as his bar did not allow women. Therefore... I immediately started thinking of another famous bar I knew of bet have never frequented. THE BLUE OYSTER!! :p

So, considering the source.. you should have assumed it was meant to be funny!! It was.. and still is.
 

longwatch

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
May 14, 2006
Messages
4,327
Location
Virginia, USA
imported post

thx997303 wrote:
How about, we remove legal force from the signs prohibiting firearms, while allowing the property/business owner to remove people from their store because they violate it. Then if they dont comply, stick a trespassing charge on the individual.

Then, lets desensitize the public to carry of a defensive weapon, getting rid of the fear that is supposedly out there, so that businesses dont have a reason to ban firearms.

Sounds like everybody wins.
There are some places where that is pretty close to what is in effect, Virginia almost fits that bill.
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:
old dog wrote:
I don't understand the "Blue Oyster" reference but considering the source I suppose it was intended as a clever slur.
Not even a slur, but all he knows of the keywords.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_Academy_(franchise)#Setting

This after yapping about his "fully loaded banana-split' thinking no one would recognize it as a sly reference to his favorite, a "Montana Banana" featured at Magnolia Thunderpussy's in the Haight.

My calculus instructor, Lt. Sotzig, USN, rewarded his classes with a trip to Miss Mallon's ice cream parlor.
OMG!!

Actually.. I was NOT talking about anything but a banana split.

Doug... you are the one making the connection to my unit.. not me!! You are one sick puppy. :uhoh:

When I say "Unit.." I am not being clever. I do not care to use a more obvious term to identify my male reproductive organ as the may be children visiting us. In fact.. Of this I am sure. :lol:
 
Top